400
Lewiston shooting suspect found dead, law enforcement officials say
(www.nbcnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
400 points (100.0% liked)
News
31409 readers
2336 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, some common sense gun laws would have helped. People hearing voices should not have guns in their possession.
Already a law in Maine. They have a yellow flag law to stop this. We can’t go around knocking on every gun owner’s door and asking g if they hear voices.
https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/34-B/title34-Bsec3862-A.html
The problem was, when he made the threats, he was in New York. He was committed for 2 weeks in New York. Maine's yellow flag law had no jurisdiction.
New York has a red flag law, but his home and guns were in Maine.
We solve this problem with a FEDERAL Red Flag law.
Because in New York he was reported from a military base and they removed him from the base. They had no knowledge of what he may or may not have had in Maine.
Yeah, because other folks in his unit reported him.
No, that would be failed enforcement.
Nnnooo, it’s still a failure of the cops. The law, as it is, is a good law. The problem here, again, is that the cops didn’t do their jobs.
Edit: Sometimes a law is poorly written so law enforcement can’t do what’s necessary to enforce it or the law doesn’t really address a problem. That’s not what happened here; the cops simply chose not to enforce the law, and that’s entirely on them.
If cops are ineffective, then who enforces the law, fucknut?
That doesn’t make much sense. That’s not how many laws are enforced. What do you even mean by “initiative”? Weird how they could stop my friend on the street, shove their hands in his pockets to search him for “drugs” (cannabis) and give him a ticket for loitering but when some guy tells someone he wants to shoot up a military base, no problem.
Or they can pull us over repeatedly as teens and say “where are you going tonight? Any drugs in the car? Can I search your car?” Those were failed laws but not due to “initiative”.
If you ban the sales, cops don’t have to hunt down individuals
That’s how laws work
Except HE reported having heard voices and threatened to shoot up a military base. No knocking required, the police knew and did nothing
The police don’t do shit when they hear children screaming and dying. They’re not gonna do shit about this.
Here's the scariest Supreme Court decision you'll read today:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525280/
"In a 7–2 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that due process principles did not create a constitutional right to police protection, despite the existence of a court-issued restraining order."
No, but you can ask anyone that checks in to a ward saying their hearing voices if they have guns.
Sounds foolproof. People being involuntarily committed never lie to the people locking them up!
Too bad there's no way to find out if they have guns like, for example, looking to see if they have guns. But that would be impossible.
We could enact a law that would have people take a yearly gun safety course which includes a psychological assessment to determine their fitness for gun ownership. Failure to comply would start a process for gun confiscation by the state. Failure to provide proof of completion would result in a $10,000 fine and confiscation of guns on the person and on their property.
"common sense gun law" is meaningless
Yeah here's me not wanting a gun for myself because I sleep walk. How is it that people with dangerous mental disorders can just get whatever they want?
Nah, this blood, as with almost all mass shootings, is completely on the 2A people as far as I'm concerned.
Australia cleaned up their act in response to mass tragedy. Our society just isn't a society.
That would require some degree of cooperation and sacrifice. Modern Americans just don't have those qualities in us.
This is what our people have chosen to be.
yep i realized this when a room full of dead 6 year olds wasnt enough for the 2a people to realize real people are dying for their fake security. ive lost hope
Australia didn't have a problem with mass shootings, then they had 1 mass shooting. They banned guns, and continued to not have problems with mass shootings. Doesn't prove anything. In fact they have more guns now than they did pre-ban
The first result on google for 'Australia gun ownership rates':
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2021/04/28/new-gun-ownership-figures-revealed-25-years-on-from-port-arthur.html
And I don't know much about their mass shooting history, but here's an article explaining that homicides and suicides sharply declined after the ban:
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
also other countries take shooting to mass shooting more serious where here in murica they dont make the news with under 6 victims
Which is why I'd prefer to have a gun
We can't do what Australia did. 2nd Amendment aside (and that alone is a huge blocker), we have a much larger population and a much larger inventory.
Australia confiscated 650,000 guns on a population at the time of around 18 million people. Even that was only 20% of the guns in the country.
https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
The United States has a population over 330 million with over 400 million guns.
20% of 400 million would be 80 million guns. To take those off the street, we would have to run the equivalent of the Australian program 123 times.
Logistically, it's impossible. Even without the 2nd amendment we don't have the capacity to do it. There's no way to collect and dispose of them.
Who says this has to be done in a day? Have gun drop off places which keeps lists, destroy the guns (weld the muzzle or drill in a hole both can be done in 2minutes for a single gun) and then sell them to scrapyards. People have time until the end of 2024.
The Australian plan did take a year, October 1996 to September 1997, and all they got was 650,000 guns which was 20%.
Americans first, have no obligation to give up their guns thanks to the 2nd Amendment and second, aren't as likely to give up their guns.
You aren't getting 80 million (20%) even in a year, and again, we don't have the capacity to collect and dispose of them.
80 million / 50 (yeah, I know, it won't be an even distribution, but let's work the math roughly) 1.6 million per state / 12 months = 133,333 a month per state.
The Australian plan took 12 months to collect 650,000. So the US would need to meet that in about 5 states in one month.
The most successful gun buyback in US history collected 4,200 guns across 4 buybacks.
https://www.hcp1.net/GunBuyback
The Australian plan cannot work here.
I mean, you're throwing out a lot of numbers claiming it is impossible, but we have logistics and resources that Australia didn't in 1996. If Amazon can deliver 7.7 billion packages a year, and the US can count 150 million votes in a week during election season, we can figure out how to break down 400 million guns over a month, a year, or a decade. It doesn't have to happen overnight. The "Australian plan" doesn't have to work here, but getting guns off the street somehow does.
mate the gun buyback was only the start. we also completely overhauled laws making it incredibly difficult to buy a gun in the first place. a gun amnesty has been in place since and I think is still in place today (you can walk into a copshop, hand over your gun and all is good). Of course it will take time, but claiming it's impossible is just not remotely correct. mass disposals, collection bins. and it's not like all 400m will be or need to be collected, there will always be legitimate uses for certain types of guns as there is anywhere in the world, but every suburban Bob doesn't need an armoury for "defence".
The only block you have is culture. Fix that, then your constitution can be fixed, then the physical act of reducing guns in circulation commences. if it takes a generation to remove the vast majority of unnecessary weapons it's time well spent. your kids and/or grand kids might have a chance to go to school without the threat of being blown away, but only if you want to change
It's not culture, it's repeated Supreme Court rulings since 2008.
Lots of cited sources below, but the tl;dr is you can't ban entire classes of weapons, you can't require militia membership, everyone has the right to defend themselves and requiring guns be locked up or disassembled defeats that right, the 2nd amendment is not limited to the weapons extant at the time of passing, and states can't place special restrictions on ownership or possession.
Now, could all that change? Sure, this court did strike down Roe vs. Wade after all... it just took 50 years to swing the court the other direction. So maybe by 2073?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."
and further:
"(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
Because that was decided against Washington D.C. and not an actual state, there was a 2nd ruling making it clear that this applies to states as well:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
""the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense" (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right" (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that "[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day" (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[21]"
2016 had my favorite ruling in all this because it wouldn't INITIALLY seem to deal with guns. A woman bought a taser to protect herself from an abusive ex. MA ruled the 2nd amendment didn't apply because tasers didn't exist when the 2nd amendment was written.
Enter the Supreme Court:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caetano_v._Massachusetts
"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any ""[w]eapo[n] of offence" or "thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands," that is "carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action." 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."[10]
The most recent is the New York ruling where you needed special permission from the state to get a concealed carry permit, which was often denied, even if you were a law abiding gun owner.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen
"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.' We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."[28]
Where this ruling is especially different is that it sets the grounds for striking down other, in place, gun laws all over the country:
"When the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct [here the right to bear arms], the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's "'unqualified command.'"
bruh your constitution isn't some holy scripture handed down from heaven in some perfect form. why do you think "ammendments" happened in the first place? they are a legal expression of your cultures appetite for what your country stands for, and can be changed.
you guys (as a whole) don't want it to.
ergo, its cultural
The amendments are there because a 2/3rds vote of the House and Senate voted for them and 3/4 of the states ratified them. Until a similar vote un-does them, they are the law of the land.
so why doesn't another vote undo them? oh that's right, the fucked up gun culture
You guys put people on the moon in the 60s. You sure as hell can sort this out with enough will power and time. But instead all you offer are excuses.
We haven't been to the moon since 1972 and don't even have our own shuttle program anymore. Our bridges and roads are falling apart, we have absolutely no plan for climate change, and this ass-hat is speaker of the House of Representatives:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/speaker-mike-johnson-legislation-house-agenda/
But here's the crux of the problem that folks outside the US don't get:
The right to own a gun is guaranteed in our founding document. It doesn't matter if you agree it should be or not, it's there and it's been upheld by the Supreme Court multiple times.
We could amend the Constitution again... but doing so starts in the House and takes 290 votes.
They took 22 days to get a simple 217 vote majority to decide who their own Speaker would be, there's no WAY they get 290 votes on removing the 2nd Amendment.
But let's say some miracle happens and we get 290, now it goes to the Senate where we need 67 votes. Same problem, the Senate is incapacitated by a minority who require 60 votes to do ANYTHING and that hasn't been attainable.
But lets say some billionaire swoops in and pays off enough people to get 67...
Now it goes to the states for ratification and we need 38 states for it to become an amendment.
Look at 2020 as a guide - Biden won 25 states + Washington D.C., Trump won 25 states.
You would need all 25 Biden states to ratify + 13 Trump states. For every Biden state you lose, you need +1 Trump state.
Take a look at the Trump states and count up 13 willing to give up their gun rights...
Australian here, you know what I hear when this argument gets trotted out?
"I have a yard full of prickles and it really hurts when I step on them but there's just too many prickles to even think about trying to get rid of them. Even just the ones from the front porch to the letterbox. Oh, how it hurts when I step on one! But it's just too hard."
Everything starts with small steps. Start doing the small steps. Otherwise you're just parroting The Onion's seminal news story on gun violence, and they were being sadly satirical.
Don't forget the day before he killed people that this was "a good guy with a gun"